Contemplating Alpha; Warming to Celeron
by Alan Zisman
(c) 1998. First
published in Canadian Computer Wholesaler, October 1998
Techtalk reader Ken McKinnon called us to task
recently, writing:
?I read your article on CPU alternatives, and I agree
with most of your
views. However, there is one very important CPU you failed to mention.
The DEC Alpha chip is by far the most advanced CPU
in the market place today. Unfortunately, DEC screwed up their company,
and now Intel owns
the rights to it.
?I rarely get the opportunity to work with Alpha
chips. It's 99% Pentium
Chips these days. I don't mind Pentium chips, but the architecture
suffers
from too many bottle necks. I know that Microsoft favors the Alpha chip
when it comes to writing a 64-Bit (or 128-Bit) version of Windows
NT.
Who knows..... Intel may abandon the Pentium chip in favor of the Alpha
in the future?.
?The choices in the future will not be: Celeron, K6,
PowerPC, or MMX.
(how many people do you know buy Cyrix chips these days)? The choices
will
be: Pentium II, Alpha, or maybe Pentium III.?
There have been questions about the future of the
Alpha?for a long time,
it?s seemed like this powerful processor was Digital Equipment?s
best-kept
secret. This spring, as part of the settlement of mutual lawsuits
between
Digital and Intel, Intel purchased the Hudson, Massachusetts Alpha
fabrication
plant for $700 million. While there has been some concern about Intel?s
commitment to manufacturing a competitor?s CPU, Digital (now owned by
Compaq),
retained the right to license Alpha technology to other companies?and
has
done so, with AMD using it to produce a Slot 1-like bus, while Korea?s
Samsung has licensed the processor itself.
The current speed champ is the Alpha 21264 processor,
which, by utilizing
out of order code execution, manages to be twice as powerful as
the
previous Alpha 21164 model running at the same speed. Digital?s Aaron
Baunch,
quoted in the June 1998 issue of Byte Magazine, predicts that the 21264
will be ramped up from current 600 MHz speeds all the way to
gigabyte
speed (1000 MHz) within two years, and will offer double the integer
and
triple the floating point performance of Intel?s next generation Merced
processor?all that on a chip that?s half Merced?s size, produced on the
same 0.18 micron fabrication.
In fact, Alphas may hit 1 gigabyte speeds even sooner
than that?Compaq/Samsung
subsidiary, Alpha Processors Inc (API), plans to bring out a model at
that
speed in 1999, according to a June 23rd report online by Cnet News.com.
They also report that the company expects to move to a more efficient
copper
process, similar to the one developed by IBM.
Like Intel?s upcoming IA-64 Merced, which is now not
expected before
the year 2000 at the earliest, these Alpha models are already 64-bit
processors.
The problem is software?Alpha systems can run 64-bit Unix operating
systems,
but Windows NT, while available in a version optimized for Alpha, is
currently
limited to 32-bit support. Microsoft is working on a 64-bit Alpha
version
(and is planning to produce a 64-bit Merced version as well). NT64 is
expected
shortly after the release of 32-bit NT 5.0. According to API?s chairman
Dr. Daeji Chen, even the 32-bit NT 5.0 will provide support for 64-bit
technology.
There is an expectation that Compaq will build on its
ownership of the
Alpha by producing components, including chipsets and even
motherboards,
that can work with both AMD K6 and Alpha processors, expanding the
potential
market for Alpha. Such developments could lead to an expanded line of
Alpha
workstations. There were fears that Compaq only purchased Digital for
its
support network?the company has seemed intent on promoting Alpha as a
high-powered,
64-bit workstation solution that, unlike Merced, is here now.
However, all is not rosy with Compaq and Alpha. With
Alpha-powered machines
representing a mere 5% of the NT workstation market, Compaq has
recently
cut its support for co-op marketing of Alpha-based products. Under
these
schemes, they shared in the advertising costs for server and
workstation
hardware powered by Alpha CPUs, but produced by 3rd-party
companies?while
Compaq is producing new Alpha-powered models (such as the Alpha-powered
XP workstation) this makes it more difficult for other, typically
smaller
companies to compete using the processor.
Alpha is still not aimed at the computer
mainstream?Compaq?s XP line,
for example, will be selling between $5000-10,000 (US$)
Stepping back from the high-priced, high-powered
workstations, we need
to take another look at Intel?s Celeron. In June, when this attempt by
Intel to make its mark on the booming low-end market was new, we found
it disappointing. Its lack of an L2 cache resulted in lesser
performance
than competitive products from AMD and others, or even compared to
Intel?s
Pentium MMX.
That was the story, at least when looking at
performance running typical
office-type software. But that wasn?t the end of the story. A number of
readers wanted to ?Say Yes to Celeron?.
Reader Aaron Rokstad pointed out:
?What is intriguing is that Intel makes the Celeron
with the same core
as a PII 400. But, the Celeron is a 66 MHz FSB (front side bus) chip,
compared
to the 100Mhz FSB P-II 400. Intel uses different grounding schemes,
which
limit the Celeron to 66 MHz. Take away that ground (pin b21) and voila,
a Celeron running at bus speed 100Mhz. Also, when you screw with the
voltage
and multipliers, you have a Celeron running on a bus speed of 100Mhz at
448 MHz (that's right, almost 450mhz!!!). Don't believe me, check
www.tomshardware.com
for info. Thousands of people are doing this. They get 350 MHz
performance
for the price of just a little over 150 dollars. I've had mine running
at 400Mhz for around 8 days, no crashes or hangs.?
So hardware hot-rodders like it because it can be
over-clocked to run
faster than its initial setting. And it turns out that many gamers have
found it works for them, as well. Many popular games make little use of
the L2 cache, so Celeron?s lack doesn?t hurt them. And the Celeron has
the same floating-point unit (math-coprocessor or FPU) as the P-II,
which
is superior to the FPU in the clone CPUs. So it offers the most band
for
the low-end buck for Doom-players, as reader Art Prufer pointed out.
Finally, in August, Intel released a pair of new
Celeron models, with
an L2 cache. The Celeron 300A and 333A include 128 kb of cache compared
to the P-II?s 512 kb. But while the P-II?s cache runs at half the CPU?s
speed, these new Celerons run it at full speed. Less cache, but faster.
As a result, on some tests, the new Celerons seem as fast as the same
speed
P-IIs, but at a considerably lower price.